The Sexism Is Back: NYT's Bruni Calls Hillary "Calculating" and "Controlling"

In a typical Frank Bruni piece on political theater, as opposed to, you know actual issues, Bruni let's his sexist flag fly.

It starts with belittling her interacto with Lena Dunham as a "pajama party." Would he have used tha phrase if it involved 2 men. Never.

But it gets worse:

How can her response to charges that she’s too packaged and calculating be this packaged and calculated?

You can read the thought in his mind - why won't the calculating bitch stop being a calculating bitch? And get this one:

She’s impressively controlled. She’s distressingly controlling.

Yes, the controlling bitch is what he is saying.


< Syria: Assad, Not ISIS or AQ, Is the Problem | GOP Admits eGhazi Political Witchhunt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Back?!? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    When did it leave?

    I have had it with this cr@p. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    I am so fed up and infuriated with the way the media portrays Hillary Clinton that I am donating to her campaign. It was not my plan to give money to anyone in the primary, but enough is enough.

    And anyone who thinks the press will be kinder to a different Democrat, any Democrat, is delusional. If Sanders, or god forbid Biden, is the nominee, the press attacks on that candidate will be merciless. Other Dems will get a pass in the primary because the first goal is to destroy Clinton, but no Dem gets out unscathed.

    I will keep pressing "send" on the Clinton donation page.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    I upped my donation today because of all this junk. I'm sick to death of it and instead of doing you know AN ACTUAL analysis of what she's proposing it's just about stupid stuff.

    I donated for same reason n/t (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    The "pajama party" reference has me (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    shaking my head; it's just so beneath contempt and completely out of place in any conversation, much less one that concerns two accomplished - in different ways - women in a face-to-face interview that covered a wide range of topics of interest.

    It will be interesting to see how the media covers Fiorina, because the persona I saw in the debate last week seemed orders of magnitude more calculating and controlling than anything Clinton has ever evinced.  

    Would it be better if the media goes after Carly for her personality traits?  No - but if they don't, then what does that say?  That they can claim - "see? It has nothing to do with her gender?"  That it's all just because...Clinton?

    Oh, it all just makes me angry and tired and depressed and frustrated.

    This is going to be a long and ugly year; don't know if I'm up for it.

    There's sexism already re Fiorina (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by smott on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    If any male up on the debate stage had been as poised, well-prepared, and on point as Firoina, never mind skewering The Donald as coolly as she did, they'd be at the top of the polls.

    Having said same, there's plenty more sexism where that came from, both from the GOP and our famously liberal media.

    But the attacks on Clinton are simply nauseating. The NYT has zero cred anymore for me. I only hope the public is as sick of it as we are.


    There's a genuine hunger out there for using (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:32:08 PM EST
    female public figures in general as punching bags..

    One thinks of all that relentless "comedic" pummeling of the late Amy Winehouse and Lindsey Lohan. It apparently didn't matter to a lot of people that those two had serious personal problems. They were fair game.

    Seth Macfarlane in particular seems to positively revel in kicking celebrity women.

    It's all part of a widespread nasty, drunken-frat boy subculture -- drunken frat boys who never grew up. And there's a lot of them out there.


    When the latest round of feminism (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    blossomed in the 1970s, Time magazine ran a story about common presentations of women in literature and film.  I recall the one stereotype being the bimbo, a bit slow in the intellect department, but having a kind & caring heart.  Opposite that was the nasty, shrewish, black widow spider bitch (personified in the old days in film by the successful & harsh businesswoman such as Joan Crawford.)  Yep. Bruni probably buys into the shrewish part when it comes to highly successful women.  Maybe a lot more people hold that view as well.  That is the sad part ... that is the change, don't change, not enough, too much part.

    Nagging at me is the question of what young women think about powerful older women?  What does calculated & controlling mean, I wonder?  Are we programmed to follow until menopause by the--er, um--laws of nature?  (Forgive me for the last somewhat pessimistic part ... engendered by the hearings today wherein Cecile Richards was grilled by the Repubs in such a way as to make one wonder if the lot of them have a problem with women in general.)


    I think it's up to older generations ... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    ... to educate and remind young women about the decades of struggle it took to secure for them the opportunities that they enjoy today and often take for granted.

    Ask most young women who Patsy Mink was, and instead of recognizing her as the congresswoman who authored Title IX, the landmark federal legislation which requires our country's educational institutions to offer girls and women the same opportunities that are otherwise available to boys and men, they'll likely just stare at you with a blank look on their faces.



    Not my students (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    because Sen. Mink is an answer on the final exam.

    But to christinep's question: Sadly, ignorance can be improved by education, for some -- but not if complicating the ignorance is cognitive dissonance with inculcated misinformation.  Too many young women as well as men today refuse to accept even incontrovertible facts, if those are counter to their inculcation in much of our culture today.

    K12 teachers have students only for a year, and we know that they rarely can counter upbringing and inculturation.  College teacher have students only for a semester -- and then only for a few hours per week. How many of us completely change our minds, our worldviews, in a matter of hours?

    So, it is the responsibility of all of us -- including to support those who are leaders trying to do so, especially by example.  Sen. Mink is a marvelous example, and in no small part because she knew history (and credited the woman before her who truly began what became Title IX).  I do know that some of my students who learned about Sen. Mink and other exemplars also learned larger lessons that have stayed with them, long after final exams, and they are teachers today . . .  the fortunate ones are supported by parents, school boards, and states.  

    Others have left teaching, sadly, for lack of all of the above, all from those older generations.  


    FYI, Patsy Mink served in the U.S. House ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    ... for nearly 24 years in two separate stints, first in 1965-77 and then again in 1991-2002. (Disclosure: I once worked for her.) During that interim period, she was a member of the Honolulu City Council and served as its chair. She was never a U.S. senator, although she did run in 1976 for the seat vacated by the retiring Sen. Hiram Fong. She lost to fellow U.S. Rep. Spark Matsunaga in that year's Democratic primary.

    In late July 2002, Mrs. Mink was unknowingly exposed to the varicella virus while on a site visit to a suburban D.C. elementary school. She returned home to Honolulu for the summer recess, but soon came down with chicken pox and died from its complications on Sept. 28, 2002.

    Nevertheless, Mrs. Mink's name remained on the ballot, and in Nov. 2002 she became one of only five people in the history of the U.S. Congress to win election or re-election posthumously. No doubt, her GOP opponent in that race, State Rep. Bob McDermott, did not endear himself to local voters by saying with jocular regularity, "I'm running against a left-wing ghost."

    Interesting sidebar about Title IX: On June 23, 1972, with Mrs. Mink in attendance as an invited guest, President Nixon signed into law the U.S. Education Amendments Act of 1972, of which Title IX is part, during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

    Immediately after the ceremony's conclusion, Nixon returned to the Oval Office for a 10:00 a.m. meeting with his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman. The taped recording of this meeting includes the now-infamous "Conversation 741-002" -- a six-minute exchange that later became the Watergate scandal's "smoking gun," which led directly to the president's subsequent resignation two years later.



    When it comes to picking on celebrities, ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 05:37:15 PM EST
    ... Seth MacFarlane has long been an equal opportunity offender.

    (This one is my favorite.)

    Speaking as a graduate of the drunken frat boy subculture, I think many males feel threatened and intimidated by the presence of strong females, because such women are inherently sane and rational beings who ground us in reality.

    Being male merely requires a Y chromosome, while becoming a man requires both maturity and wisdom. Real men don't fear equality with women. Rather, we welcome it. Conversely, to quote the late Timothy Leary, "Women who seek to be the equal of men lack ambition."

    Aloha. ;-D


    Fiorina (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    is already getting the sexism too and for that reason alone I'm glad she's in the race. Yes, she's cold and calculating and has an ugly face and no one in the GOP defends her from the sexism either.

    Haven't really been following the (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    coverage of Fiorina, other than to note that she seems to be an example of someone who lies so effortlessly and so routinely that it borders on the pathological.

    She doesn't even appear to realize she's doing it.


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    that she knows full well that she's lying.

    And, (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    The New York Times (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    has a checkered past.  It led the charge on Whitewater.....It, through Judy Miller, became Dick Cheney's propaganda arm, cheerleading the invasion of Iraq based on false intelligence.

    And, from the past, in an admittedly arcane piece of history, the NY Times supported the CIA overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz government in Guatemala.  At a time when the Guatemala ambassador to the UN was desperately trying to get the UN to do something to stop the impeding CIA led coup....

    The Nation , however, opposed the coup--at the time.

    The New York Times is often invested in supporting the government.....and they have a history of outright hatred of the Clintons.

    This is going to be hard for me to say (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    Myself, as a person who would routinely chant that the NYT was the definition of a good newspaper. Now, I can only see an out-of-control hyped gossipmonger posing as a newspaper.  That trend toward yellow-journalism in the political field fills me with anger and sadness ... with sadness because I actually somewhat trusted that paper.  I have no idea what happened to the NYT? What caused the Vendetta against Hillary Clinton that so many see and call out? IMO, one of the stories that I would like to read in future would be an analysis of The Story Behind the NYT Anti-Clinton fever (aka Who Did What To Whom?)

    In the meantime, the off-the-rails sideshow at the NYT hurts in a practical sense? What major newspaper is somewhat worth it ... because I'm a lifelong newspaper reader, the immediate question for me is where to turn for my newspaper fix?

    Bruni? He is aging fast with his sexist bitterness. Oh, it has been apparent for some time ... today, he can't even bother to camouflage it.  "Pajama" in the title is the first clue. BTW, a closer read of the Bruni whine indicates that he realizes she will win (but, he will whine anyway.)  

    Yet ... as an optimist, I'm beginning to think that just like the anti-future (and anti-present) Republicans in governance, maybe these anti-the strongest-candidate in the field --by most standards--will expose themselves as the anti-feminists that they have always been.  When all is said & done, I really believe that the anti-Clinton trope by some known national reporters is animated in large part by the still-kicking fear of a strong, experienced, politically adept, wise-to-the-ways of DC woman.  Hillary Clinton has authentic power as a person ... in the political world and, especially among today's press, that can be threatening.

    An aside: I truly hope that women who chance upon such columns and/or such obvious sexism in the press' treatment of candidate Clinton will reflect on how far we've come ... and, how far we women have yet to go.


    Profound, yes, she has authentic power (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    As a person. Hard to play her. I still see Obama afraid of them sometimes. Perhaps that is only my perception though. Perhaps when I want him to take them on his analysis is it isn't worth the time, and maybe he's right.

    Will they be able to intimidate Hillary though? She comes with big guns too, ties with other authentic power individuals who can and probably will join her in specific battles.

    Why is that so threatening though? They're supposed to be journalists reporting the plays, not playas.


    Most recently (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by smott on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    With the "criminal Investigation" headlines they had to walk back (hidden well and not apologized for)...as documented by our own BTD.

    Just an embarrassment. I got into a fight w my brother about how he could use the NYT as a source for ANY article concerning Clinton.


    ... did anyone here happen to catch the absolutely disgraceful congressional public hearing on Planned Parenthood today?

    House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Paleozoic Era) is fast proving himself to be an even bigger jackass than was his predecessor, Darrell Issa. Even when caught in an obvious lie by PP CEO Cecile Richards, he just sloughed it off like water off a duck's back.

    I'm embarrassed for the entire country over this grotesque farce, which was staged on our time and dime. Clearly, we deserve better than the endless loop of Yosemite Sam cartoons we're seeing on Capitol Hill.


    Ms Richards (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 10:32:46 PM EST
    Did a pretty good job of handing them their asses

    She did (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    But it made me sick to my stomach catching up on the videos tonight. They really hate us.

    Charlie Pierce's post on this was (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 07:10:14 AM EST
    titled, "Today in Colossal Dickitude," which was about as appropriate a way to classify what happened in that hearing as anything I can think of that's still printable.

    I was amazed and proud at how Cecile Richards handled herself yesterday, and once again just more or less mortified and angry at the ignorance, rank misogyny and utter cruelty displayed by Republicans on the committee.

    I'd ask what is wrong with these people, but there's no good answer; whatever it is is chronic and apparently incurable.  


    Lemony Snicket and... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 10:06:21 PM EST
    his wife Lisa Brown have just donated a million buckaroos to Planned Parenthood.
    Brown elaborated on the couple's decision in a statement to BuzzFeed. "[Planned Parenthood is] a great organization that has provided top-quality health care for countless women and families in our lives," she said. "This year, Planned Parenthood has gone through a series of unfortunate events, and it felt right to make our support more public and more dramatic."

    I hope she is at least as controlling as (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 07:00:14 AM EST
    Maggie Thatcher, Angela Merkel, and Indira Ghandi.

    Bruni has probably been distressed his whole life!

    I think a lot of this stuff (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    Is that hacks like Bruni has discovered a niche.  This kind of crap is again a cottage industry.  No work or serious thought required.  It's like that guy in TX said, I come in, I sue the government, I go home.  These a$$holes come in, they toss off some Hilkary bashing crap, they go home.  Nice work if you are craven enough to do it.

    I think it's like they are threatening us,  you elect her get ready for 4-8 years of this.  This is my job.

    I feel (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    like they are threatening us too. It doesn't seem to matter to them how much the country suffers only that they don't have to write about Hillary. It's all about them with no care for your average American.

    At least, (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    Frank Bruni's column is labeled an "opinion piece." A reader familiar with Bruni's writings can expect an uncomplimentary reference to Mrs.Clinton weaved into whatever his topic.   He has carried over his food reporting with recipes that rely on mashing Clinton, stewing about college admissions, topped with a frosting of life with sweet siblings, nieces and nephews.  It goes dry after that.

    Then there is NYTimes reporter of "news" such as Michael S. Schmidt.  No warning as to opinion, but we are misled by news that is false reporting on Mrs. Clinton, followed by a begruding retraction.  

    Don't forget NYT's Patrick Healey (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    Several years ago--circa 2007 or so--Patrick Healy  wrote a storybook piece about the Clintons in their Chappaqua home.  Apparently, it must have been the first-&-last in a series about time-spent-at-home by political couples ... this NYT hitter purported to count the number of nights the Clintons spent together under the Chappaqua roof.  P.S. I don't remember if it contained a reference to the brand of toilet paper found in the bathroom.

    (Sigh!) It is what it is, BTD. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    The Clinton Rules have spawned a rather lucrative cottage industry in U.S. media, particularly in your neck of the woods in New York and D.C., and it's not going to end any time soon.

    I've no doubt that the professionally outraged class will be complaining about Hillary Clinton right up to the very moment of her inauguration -- and likely thereafter, as well.

    The damnedest thing, though, is trying to figure out who they want to see installed at the White House. Because collectively, the current crop of Republican presidential candidates is the most ignorant, irresponsible and contemptible group I've even seen any party put up for the Oval Office. The only one who's even remotely coherent and qualified to hold high office is John Kasich, and he's got his own serious issues.

    It's rather scary to watch an entire major political party like the GOP just go completely off the rails into cuckoo for cocoa puffs territory. They seek only to impose their will upon the country, and have absolutely no interest in governance.


    The odds are much higher (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:06:45 PM EST
    than "likely" that sexist blather about Hillary Clinton will continue unabated if she is elected President.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    I've had just about enough already. We'll be out in the streets again if it won't let up when she's President. We will be livid.

    Maybe it's time again though to wake the slumbering giantess.


    Pretty sure (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    they want Jeb Bush.

    They aren't getting him, but he's the one they want.


    It would (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    seem so. It also would seem that they are ignoring the fact that the GOP voters do not want him.

    lack of content (none / 0) (#23)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:04:14 PM EST
    I guess that if you can't refute the truth of Bruni's comments, you need to label him "sexist".

    And what exactly is the truth, Thomas? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:29:09 PM EST
    Because from my vantage point, I think that both you and Frank Bruni are self-emasculated male twits, who harbor some very peculiar notions about what it takes to be a real man.

    Is that enough truth for you, Bunky?


    It always (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    makes me happy to see guys like you Donald see what is going on because I fear it goes over the heads of a lot of guys.

    I can assure you that ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    ... sexist bullschitt like this doesn't go over the heads of many fathers like me, with young daughters who deserve the opportunity to actualize their true potential. I have no problem admitting that I'm a staunch and unapologetic feminist.

    I also have a real problem with guys like Bruni and Mr. Truth About Hillary here, who evidently desire their women to be cute rather than their equals. Clowns like them were probably voted "Most Likely to Skip Out on Child Support Payments" by their college classmates.



    "The truth" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    Silly, fluff opinion pieces with overt sexism are considered the "truth" by some.

    You, Rush, Anne Coulter ... probably a few others.


    Bahaha (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 07:17:13 PM EST

    Had the conversation today with friend. (none / 0) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    We were talking about the Planned Parenthood CEO on C-Span got knocked over her head with a tire iron. And then it went on to Bill explaining things about e-mails and it helping Hillary.  And although that is a good thing, it is a shame that so many people think a woman can not be President. They do see Bill as a back seat driver and that gives them confidence in the little lady. Woe de me.

    AND NOT All Men. Heh.

    I see nothing wrong with that, or with her campaign using that to her ultimate benefit.

    I understand why such optics are troubling to some people, who perhaps resent the implication that Hillary is somehow not strong enough to run on her own name. But that said, if there are potential Democratic voters who are reassured by Bill Clinton's presence by his candidate-wife's side, I'm not going to complain.

    After all, Hillary already proved herself to be her husband's best political asset for the better part of 30 years while he was running for office. So vice versa bothers me not in the slightest.

    The whole point of a political campaign is to encourage such voters to go to the polls in order to cast their ballots for your guy or gal. And if Bill Clinton can turn out the Democratic base next year for his wife, that's good.



    Me too (none / 0) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    But in fact as the GOP plays so dirty, we can expect some mud to come out on him soon. Like right now he should get on them for the 4.5 million dollar investigation. Thank you McCarthy and FOX news.

    FORBES 1 day ago (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 07:19:54 PM EST

    Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren't offering any answers.

    Standards (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 08:30:25 AM EST
    Trump dumps insults on questioners, insists on control

    Trump is used to controlling his world like the boss he is.

    Describing Hillary as controlling is sexist. Describing the Donald that way is OK.

    It seems as if it weren't for double standards there would be no standards at all.

    Get real.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    Trump lets himself in for all the excessive scrutiny and criticism with his spoiled-rich-brat tantrum behavior and seeming total lack of any ability to censor himself..

    Which is a way of being in the world nurtured by existing for too long in a controled environment ridden with the yesmen and sycophants the Trumps of the world like to surround themselves with.


    Regardless of issue, and come Hell or high water, you always attack the Democrats and defend the Republicans.

    I'm not defending Trump (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:36:57 AM EST

    Rather pointing out that in some precincts any description of Hillary that fails to measure up to a hagiography is summarily labeled "sexist."  Are the Donald and Hillary both "controlling?"  It's a matter of opinion. But to say that description is sexist for one and not the other makes my point.  

    Do you mean that someone (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    who has to have her very own server and email system to try and keep her emails confidential is controlling??



    Odd that any critic feels the need to go there (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    She is so ripe for criticism from financial corruption to armchair hawkishness to fibbing about being the in sh*t to an utter lack of political imagination or self-criticsim. And her answer to BLM protesters was arrogant and ignorant and deluded. Why they need to go the sexism route when they has any number of deserving targets, very weird, but again more kindergarten lack of imagination. It's a disease in American politics.

    If Bruni was inclined to dwell (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    long on financial corruption and the Washington-Wall Street revolving door, he wouldn't be able to write for the Times for long..

    Better to dwell on meaningless trivialities, trying to make them sound meaningful, while the thieves go in and out the backdoor..


    nice proofreading, dingweed (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 10:38:18 AM EST

    I (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    happen to think calculating and controlling are good  qualities in a President, within reason of course. As long as the calculations are more policy vs. politics(sorry Bill) and the control is an order of magnitude less then the Nixon/Cheney model everything is copacetic.